Liberalism is a subset of political philosophy concerned with freedom, human rights, and the legitimacy of governmental authority based on the consent of the governed and political ideology. In other words, it places the individual and his or her emotions as the most critical aspects of that individual’s political life. The word “liberal” is commonly used in unrestrained political arguments. However, thinkers and society understand its values as the assistance to be provided by the government in social welfare.
As President Franklin D. Roosevelt presented the New Deal, he approached the Great Depression by creating jobs for the masses. At the same time, “liberal” in Europe refers to the least involvement by the government rather than most, especially in economics and politics. Therefore, in political philosophy, liberalism often accompanies the concepts of limited government and its intervention.
In terms of freedom, liberalism influences how a democratic government functions. The ideas around liberalism began to take shape with John Locke, an 18th-century English philosopher known as the “Father of Liberalism.” He gathered guiding principles from ancient Greece to China’s Ming and Song dynasties.
Modern-day liberalism has developed rationally. On the contrary, it consists of an analysis of court systems and governance in place, which needs to address the community assemblies. In this case, there is a powerful notion of social self-defense, which says that every society has a right to defend itself and its property. As per Locke, a civil society will be in difficulty or even disorder in the absence of a government.
Locke investigates how knowledge can be acquired through observation and emotion instead of reason only. In Locke’s opinion, the mind does perform some functions regarding experience, but the primary source of knowledge is experience itself. There are two types of human experience—external (with the help of sight, hearing, and other senses) and internal (consciousness of thinking or feeling). They contribute to knowledge as memory, belief, and wish.
As per Lockean principles, it is proposed that a government should limit its political power by dividing it into separate institutions and adopting a constitution that follows the will of the majority. The scope of the government’s mandate should address the aspirations of affluent and noble sections without transgressing the principles of natural justice and accountability.
Conversely, some federations address and work to settle specific bilateral concerns. For example, they try to ensure that those in authority stay within certain legal boundaries in times of crisis. However, there is always a danger that the authorities might be able to misuse their powers. As for Locke, the response is quite elementary: citizens are entitled to fight back and even replace tyrants. To paraphrase, the people must reclaim their rights.
Another liberal philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, had a darker view, describing life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” in the absence of government. He was saying that, without order, society would be full of suffering and violence. Hobbes argued that constant warfare would break out in a government-less society, with violent clashes between people or groups as the only form of justice.
In the absence of a military or police force to uphold property rights, the oppression of weaker elements by stronger ones will always triumph. Ideas from empiricism and materialism are complemented in Hobbes’ concepts in a way that states knowledge is based on human experience, and life without a social order that governs men is brutish. For Hobbes, philosophy is the history of cause and effect, as demonstrated by events in the contemporary setting.
Hobbes maintained that all phenomena develop according to causation’s universal principles and peculiarity. In contrast to Locke’s view, which distinguished the faculties of the human senses from the processes of human reasoning, Hobbes was apprehensive of rationalism as he contended that empirical evidence, rather than reason, guarantees the truth. Being a materialist, Hobbes conceived that human beings were nothing more than biological machines with no inherent moral or spiritual values.
Hobbes went as far as to conceive humanity as a machine, where each part interacts with one another while conforming to the set of laws. He disregarded any metaphysical and moral notions, predominately due to the physical constitution of man, and rejected the dissenting concepts of inherent waivers or the soul’s eternity. The mind and the soul were mere functions of the body to him.
According to Hobbes, human nature is naturally vicious, and altruism is an effect of the veil of civilization. It is what he refers to as the monster Leviathan, who represents dictatorship in society. Hobbes opines that Leviathan denotes the state power where there is violence in managing an entity’s affairs to keep peace within that society through fear amid the chaos that creates a joyful atmosphere.
Hobbes postulated that self-preservation—the fear of which is the primary motivator of all human conduct—is at the center of all behavior. Once this fear is mastered, people can control their appetites, creating a system that espouses freedom. It, he contended, is why, in any policed society, a fear of death must be instilled in the citizens.
The ideas surrounding the State of Nature proposed by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes culminate in absolute and constitutional monarchies. Though they differ, they are both contributory to the ideation of individualism. In this case, the only proportionalism in our theories relates to the citizens’ motives. For Hobbes, the state’s very foundation is the common good, while the state of nature, for Locke, is receptive to oppression.
In the background of these theories, economists argue that classical economic thought forms the basis of capitalism. Adam Smith, a critical classical economist, laid the groundwork for this area’s whole school of thought. Beyond just economic or political philosophy, Smith saw politics and economics as connected and organized his ideas into three main points:
- Political philosophy is essential to his worldview.
- Identifying the forces determining value and price is important.
- Economic policies should support social welfare and progress.
In short, Smith believed that market forces should guide economic actions, with individualism taking priority, similar to politics. His essay The Wealth of Nations discusses the rise of industry and economic development in Europe, which greatly influenced modern economics and championed free trade and capitalism as rational ideas.
In conclusion, it can be stated that economic liberty is a component of liberty that enshrines freedoms in every aspect. The right to behave within an economy is an end and a means to pursue political freedom. Individuals may willingly cooperate if a system conducive to fair dealings is in place. This relationship between capitalism and liberalism appears narrow-minded to some but is consistent with the liberal ideology.
Is that to say that liberalism still possesses that uplifting ideal of freedom?
References
- Berlin, I. (1969). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press.
- Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.
- Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1651)
- Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government (P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1689)
- Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Rev. ed.). Harvard University Press.
- Rousseau, J.-J. (1968). The Social Contract (M. Cranston, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1762)
- Smith, A. (2003). The Wealth of Nations (A. S. Skinner & T. Todd, Eds.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1776)
- Tocqueville, A. de (2003). Democracy in America (H. Mansfield & D. Winthrop, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1835)
- Waldron, J. (1993). Liberal Rights: Collected Papers. Cambridge University Press.
- Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Harvard University Press.
